On November 10, 2021, Union Cabinet chaired by PM Narendra Modi approved declaration of November 15 as Janjatiya Gaurav Divas.
Key Points
The day was declared as a part of year-long celebration of 75 years of India’s independence, in a bid to commemorate brave tribal freedom fighters.
November 15 also marks the birth anniversary date of Birsa Munda who is considered as God by tribal communities across India.
Birsa Munda had made significant contributions in India’s Independence by fighting against exploitative system of British colonial system.
He belonged to the Munda tribe and spearheaded an Indian tribal religious Millenarian movement in late 19th century across the tribal belt of present-day Bihar and Jharkhand.
The Janjatiya Gaurav Divas
The Janjatiya Gaurav Divas will be observed to commemorate tribal freedom fighters. It will make the coming generations aware of sacrifices made by tribal freedom fighters during India’s independence movement. The day will be celebrated every year to recognize the efforts made by tribals in preserving cultural heritage and promoting Indian values of national pride & hospitality.
Significance of the Day
The Janjatiya Gaurav Divas will acknowledge the cultural heritage and glorious history of tribal communities.
How this day will be celebrated?
To mark this day, Indian government will launch a week-long celebration to commemorate 75 years of history of tribal people. It will start from November 15 and will conclude on November 22, 2021.
Central and State government will organize several activities as a part of celebration.
The theme of each activity will showcase achievements of tribals in Indian Freedom Struggle.
Government will undertake several initiatives in health, education, skill development, livelihood, and infrastructure.
Scientists from India, Australia and the US have found that the Earth’s first continents emerged from the ocean 700 million years earlier than thought.
Researchers have always been intrigued about when the landmasses we reside on came into existence and till recently, it was widely accepted that continents rose out of the ocean about 2.5 billion years ago. However, a recent study has changed that notion.
A recent research has shown that the Earth’s first continents may have risen out of the ocean about 700 million years earlier than previously thought. And to the surprise of many, the earliest continental land to have risen about 3.2 billion years ago may have been Jharkhand’s Singhbhum region. Scientists from India, Australia and the US have found sandstones in Singhbhum with geological signatures of ancient river channels, tidal plains and beaches over 3.2 billion years old, representing the earliest crust exposed to air.
When asked as to how Singhbhum came into the picture of research related to Earth Sciences, Dr Priyadarshi Chowdhury of Monash University, the study’s lead author, told indianexpress.com that the answer to “when the first landmasses were formed lay in the sedimentary rocks of the region”.
“We found a particular type of sedimentary rocks, called sandstones. We then tried to find their age and in which conditions they have formed. We found the age by analysing the uranium and lead contents of tiny minerals. These rocks are 3.1 billion years old, and were formed in ancient rivers, beaches, and shallow seas. All these water bodies could have only existed if there was continental land. Thus, we inferred that the Singhbhum region was above the ocean before 3.1 billion years ago,” Chowdhury said.
But, Chowdhury said, patches of the earliest continental land also exist in Australia and South Africa.
Speaking about how they determined that the region rose above ocean during the timeframe mentioned above, Chowdhury explained: “We studied the granites that form the continental crust of the Singhbhum region. These granites are 3.5 to 3.1 billion years old and formed through extensive volcanism that happened about 35-45 km deep inside the Earth and continued on-and-off for hundreds of millions of years until all the magma solidified to form a thick continental crust in the area. Due to the thickness and less density, the continental crust emerged above surrounding oceanic crust owing to buoyancy.”
“This is the most direct, unambiguous date yet for the emergence of continental land,” Chowdhury said. The findings have appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a US research journal.
The research also tends to break another well-accepted notion: continents rose above the ocean due to plate tectonics, which is the major driver today for increases in the elevation of land masses.
“We have plate tectonics today to control the elevation. When two continents’ (plates) collide, you form the Himalayas, you form the Alps,” he said. “That wasn’t the case 3 billion years [ago]. The first continents probably rose above sea level as they were inflated by progressive injection of magma derived from deep in the Earth.”
The researchers believe that the earliest emergence of continents would have contributed to the proliferation of photosynthetic organisms, which would have increased oxygen levels in the atmosphere. “Once you create land, what you also create is shallow seas, like lagoons,” Chowdhury added, accelerating the growth of oxygen-producing life forms that may have boosted oxygen in the atmosphere and ocean.
Exhorting on the importance of such studies, Chowdhury said that at a time when the entire world was debating about changes in climate, it is very important to understand how our atmosphere, oceans and climate came into existence and how they interacted with geological processes operating deep inside Earth to make our planet habitable.
“It allows us to link the interior of Earth to its exterior in deep time. India has three other ancient continental fragments — Dharwar, Bastar and Bundelkhand regions. We need to understand their evolution. What we did in Singhbhum may serve as a template for studying these other cratons,” he added.
Shah Alam Khan writes: In the absence of an organised food security net and political commitment, India is being crippled by the challenge of pervasive hunger and malnourishment
A busy day ended and I started walking towards my car in the hospital parking lot. With the setting sun in my eyes, I saw this seven- or eight-year-old boy standing at the hospital entrance speaking to his younger sister. Their father and an old lady (probably their grandmother) sat on their haunches nearby. The little boy had returned after visiting his ailing mother, who was admitted in our hospital. The visit of the young boy had coincided with lunch being served to admitted patients. This stroke of luck had given him a chance of a lifetime. It was now his turn to describe the menu to his younger sister.
“There was dal. There was roti. There was dahi….” He spoke like a lover who has just won a duel. His sister listened in awe. Her half-open mouth and shining eyes had an element of surprise. “What else was there?” she asked nervously. Her golden-brown hair, a sign of malnutrition, added misery to her innocent face.
“And there was achaar,” he continued with a snick of the tongue. Every food item he mentioned widened the little girl’s eyes.
I kept listening to them. The click of his tongue, the warmth of the rotis, the precise salt in the dal — good food had turned him into a master storyteller. Her sister’s face was slowly falling apart, her excitement turning into anxiety. Her sparse eyebrows were raised like parentheses. She was beginning to realise what she had missed. The storyteller continued. By now, darkness had engulfed his face. His brittle voice followed me into the car park. I drove into the darkness promising myself to quickly forget hiA few months after this incident, the Global Hunger Index (GHI) report ranked India at 101 out of a total of 116 countries. Despite my resistance, the two children returned to haunt me. Very unceremoniously, we were again labelled the republic of hungry citizens. To add misery to this horrible truth is the fact that in the crop year 2019-20 (July-June), the country’s foodgrain output was at a record 297.5 million tones. Hunger in India is thus a classic case of the crisis of capitalism, which Karl Marx, the best food theorist I know, had once warned us against.
In his book, Hunger: A Modern History, James Vernon has described hunger as a “timeless and inescapable biological condition”. Wrong. Hunger has always been political. The soul of hunger lies in the evil of the ruling class. The biology of hunger resides inside the coffers of the state and its cronies. In a 2008 paper, Hunger in the Contemporary World, Amartya Sen enumerated the interdependence of food deprivation and hunger on multiple factors. According to him, hunger involves much more than food. Different interconnections of food or lack of it are well-being of economic sectors, women’s education, public activism and social commitment, employment, military expenditure, political incentives and government policies, people’s income and inter-family food distribution rules. The complex diversity of these interconnections is what makes India vulnerable to pervasive hunger.
Having said this, it is interesting to note that in the current GHI, India has fared worse than neighbours Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. These are countries with a similar subset of factors and “food interconnections” as ours. It won’t be wrong to, therefore, conclude that we need to evaluate our responses in the fight against hunger in the backdrop of what these nations did right in standing up to the menace of hunger.
In the last decade or so, Bangladesh has shown significant progress on many socio-economic parameters. Infant mortality rate (IMR), which is considered to be one of the best indicators of overall health of the society, is 23.6 per thousand live births for Bangladesh as against India’s IMR of 28.7 per thousand live births. Female literacy in Bangladesh is 72 per cent, higher than that of India at 66 per cent. There is thus no surprise that they have done fairly well in the GHI. A study conducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) on food security post the Covid-19 crisis in Bangladesh concluded that though the lockdown brought significant food insecurity, it quickly went back to the pre-pandemic levels with extensive government involvement. A similar conclusion for India will need a leap of imagination.s sister’s miserable face and the meagre food he described. I dreamt of them that night.
On the day that the GHI released its rankings, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the country’s goal under the Aatmanirbhar Bharat campaign was to emerge as the most powerful military in the world. However, our expenditure on health over the last five years has either remained static or declined. Health is the single most crucial “interconnection of food”. Political will and commitment come a close second. In the absence of an organised food security net, particularly in urban India, our rank in the GHI will fall further.
India is a signatory to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). We need to achieve these 13 targets and 28 indicators by 2030. The SDG target 2.1 enumerates that by 2030 we need to end hunger and ensure access of all people, in particular the poor and vulnerable, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. In 2020, we were ranked 94 (out of 107 countries) in the GHI. Our deterioration in 2021 is a grim reminder of our potential inability to achieve the SDG 2.1 target unless we do something drastically different; something more than committing ourselves to war, and a vulgar display of power. Unless that happens, we, the republic of hungry people, shall continue to find truth in what Charlotte Bronte, had written in Shirley, the Tale:
“Take the matter as you find it: ask no questions; utter no remonstrances: it is your best wisdom. You expected bread, and you have got a stone; break your teeth on it, and don’t shriek because the nerves are martyrised: do not doubt that your mental stomach — if you have such a thing — is strong as an ostrich’s — the stone will digest.”
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad served as the first education minister of independent India from 1947 to 1958. He was posthumously honoured with India’s highest civilian award - Bharat Ratna in 1992.
Every year since 2008, November 11 is celebrated as the National Education Day to mark the birth anniversary of India’s first education minister Abul Kalam Ghulam Muhiyuddin. Fondly known as Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, he served as the education minister of independent India for over 10 years from 1947 to 1958. He was posthumously honoured with India’s highest civilian award – Bharat Ratna in 1992.
Apart from holding the rank of India’s education minister, Abul kalam Azad donned many hats of being a journalist, freedom fighter, politician, and educationist. Here are five lesser-known facts about the late education minister who transformed the education system of India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was born in Saudi Arabia
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was born in Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 1888. His mother was an Arab and the daughter of Sheikh Mohammad Zaher Watri and Azad’s father, Maulana Khairuddin, was a Bengali Muslim of Afghan origins who came to Arab during the Sepoy Mutiny and proceeded to Mecca and settled there. He came back to Calcutta with his family in 1890 when Abul Kalam was two years old.
Abul Kalam was homeschooled and knew many languages
Azad pursued traditional Islamic education. He was taught at home, first by his father and later by appointed teachers who were eminent in their respective fields. Azad learned Arabic and Persian first and then philosophy, geometry, mathematics and algebra. He also learned English, world history, and politics through self-study. Azad also knew Hindustani, Hindi and English languages.
Started two weekly journals – Al-Hilal and Al-Balagh to promote Hindu-Muslim unity
In 1912, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad started a weekly journal in Urdu called Al-Hilal to increase the revolutionary recruits amongst the Muslims. Al-Hilal played an important role in forging Hindu-Muslim unity after the bad blood created between the two communities in the aftermath of Morley-Minto reforms. Al-Hilal became a revolutionary mouthpiece ventilating extremist views. ‘The government regarded Al- Hilal as a propagator of secessionist views and banned it in 1914.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad then started another weekly called Al-Balagh with the same mission of propagating Indian nationalism and revolutionary ideas based on Hindu-Muslim unity. In 1916, the government banned this paper too and expelled Maulana Abul Kalam Azad from Calcutta and exiled him to Bihar from where he was released after the First World War 1920.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad supported Non-Cooperation Movement started by Gandhiji and entered Indian National Congress in 1920. He was elected as the president of the special session of the Congress in Delhi (1923). At an age of 35, he became the youngest person to serve as the President of the Indian National Congress.
Maulana Azad was arrested in 1930 for violation of the salt laws as part of Gandhiji’s Salt Satyagraha. He was put in Meerut jail for a year and a half. After his release, he again became the president of Congress in 1940 (Ramgarh) and remained in the post till 1946.
Founder of Jamia Milia Islamia University
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was one of the founding members of the Jamia Milia Islamia University, originally established at Aligarh in the United Provinces, India in 1920.
He is responsible for shaping the modern education system of the country. The first IIT, IISc, School of Planning and Architecture and the University Grants Commission were established under his tenure as the education minister. The most prominent cultural, literary academies were also built including the Sangeet Natak Academy, Lalit Kala Academy, Sahitya Academy as well as the Indian Council for Cultural Relations.
Suryakant Waghmore writes: The film is an important depiction of institutionalised discrimination and the quest for justice and power of marginalised groups
Movies based on the real-life struggles of marginalised groups are rare in mainstream Indian cinema. T J Gnanavel’s Jai Bhim is amongst the few that engages with issues of identity and institutionalised discrimination with some sincerity. It is based on the true story of the struggle of Parvathi (Sengani in the movie), an Irula woman, to find and secure justice for her husband, who is arrested and tortured in police custody in a false case of theft, only to disappear from custody later.
Jai Bhim has a powerful cast with Suriya playing the protagonist, based on the communist lawyer-turned-judge, K Chandru, Lijomol Jose as Sengani and Manikandan as her husband, Rajakannu. The movie is a portrayal of the life, occupation and culture of the Irula tribe, their aspiration for a better life and education, and the daily exclusions, along with torture and mass incarceration, that they face — all nested in the deeply hierarchical and illiberal democratic structure of Tamil Nadu.
Set in the early 1990s, the movie shows Rajakannu working as a snake catcher in the homes and farms of the very upper-caste landlords who snub and shun him. Yet, the homeless, landless citizenship of the Irulas is not void of hope and draws meaning from their proximity to nature and the protections enshrined in the Constitution.
Justice Chandru makes no bones about his communist leanings in real life and this is shown well in the movie by Gnanavel. The symbolism of the red flag with the hammer and sickle, banners and posters, along with images and statues of Karl Marx are found in the background of various scenes. Justice Chandru hunts down evidence for the custodial murder of Rajakannu and his wrongful arrest for theft, while arguing a habeas corpus petition filed by Sengani in the high court. The depiction of the violence and cruelty faced by the incarcerated Rajakannu and his close relatives is gut-wrenching and the pregnant Sengani’s quest for justice, despite the trauma, is inspiring. The story unfolds as advocate Chandru argues the case and takes on the mighty apparatus of the state as a good cop (played by Prakash Raj) joins the battle for conscience.
Jai Bhim is also a commentary on the masculine nature of the Indian state, its loose structures permeated by the caste and kinship powers that enable and institutionalise discrimination against marginalised groups like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and even Muslims.
Despite the realism embedded in the movie, one is left wanting more. Does Suriya look like Justice Chandru? Tamil movies could definitely do better to inculcate an appreciation for dark skin and non-mainstream imagery. Another concern is with the portrayal of Left politics. Hugo Gorringe, a sociologist and scholar of Tamil Nadu, suggests that politics is also a game of pragmatism and the Left movements too are under compulsion to adopt pragmatic politics. It is this pragmatism that forced the Left to focus on issues of caste and social exclusion in Tamil Nadu. One is left wondering why the movie is titled Jai Bhim as Ambedkar is neither evoked nor portrayed as the guiding light except once, when Chandru mentions that Ambedkar was sidelined by Gandhi and Nehru.
The current pressures of politics and the resulting pragmatism may need the symbolic presence of Ambedkar, with an Ambedkar being available for everyone. For legal activism and in a legal drama oriented towards social justice, Ambedkar could be more inspiring than Marx as he had believed that the process of civil repair requires smaller and continual revolutions in society and the institutional mechanisms of justice. The quest for justice and power is a continuous process for marginalised groups. As the lyrics of one song in Jai Bhim go:
Take the power in your hand/ Dare to take power in your hand/ You have no choice but that.
We must also stay aware that the Irulas are still waiting for substantive power and their Ambedkar is yet to seize the moment. We need many more movies like Jai Bhim in our struggle for a better world.
Google’s Drive and Dropbox are two of the most popular options
for cloud storage and backup. Which makes sense, because the two platforms
compete with each other intensely. Which one is right for you? That’s a complex
question, and it comes down to several factors: your budget, your total backup
needs, and which platforms you want to use them on.
Unsurprisingly, Google Drive works best if you’re
heavily invested in Google’s other systems: Android, Chrome OS, and the Google
Workspace suite of web apps. It’s also a better value in general. Dropbox is a better choice if
you’re more concerned with speed and performance, and are willing to pay for
it.
Pricing
At the consumer level, both companies offer at
least one approximately comparable plan for cloud storage. Here’s a quick
breakdown of the various plans and prices:
Storage
tier
Google
Drive/Google One
Dropbox
2GB
–
Free
(bonuses available)
15GB
Free
–
100GB
$2 a
month
–
200GB
$3 a
month
–
2TB
$10 a
month
$12 a
month (one user only), $20 a month for 6 users
3TB
–
$20 a
month (one user only)
5TB
$25 a
month
$45 per
month/3 user minimum, $15 for each extra user
10TB
$50 a
month
–
20TB
$100 a
month
–
30TB
$150 a
month
–
Unlimited
–
$75 per
month/3 user minimum, $25 for each extra user
As you can see, Google Drive (also known as Google
One) offers both more initial, free storage, and more and cheaper options at
different levels of storage. Dropbox users can boost their free storage
by getting
friends to sign up with referral codes, up to 16GB. But making
users essentially do your marketing for you to get what’s free elsewhere isn’t
a great value proposition.
Both companies offer discounts for paying yearly
instead of monthly. But in terms of bang for your buck, Dropbox really only
makes sense for individual users who want up to two terabytes of storage, or
for teams of users who need an absolutely huge amount: more than Google Drive’s
maximum 30TB.
Also, while Google allows free users to access Drive from
anywhere and on unlimited devices, Dropbox makes users pay for more than three
devices to have easy access via dedicated apps. You can get
around this limit by using the Dropbox browser tool, but it’s a pretty huge
barrier for free users.
Integration
Google also wins out on integration with different platforms.
The Google Drive system is built into most Android phones and tablets, all
Chrome OS-powered devices, and it’s the default way to save files in Google
Docs and other Google Workspace tools. On top of that, Google Drive/One apps
are available on iOS and Windows, allowing for easy uploads and
downloads.
Dropbox is also available pretty much everywhere,
but its integration is less seamless on mobile and Chrome OS. While it’s
possible to upload and download to Dropbox on almost any platform (via the
browser if not a dedicated app), it may take a few more steps. The three-device
limit on a free Dropbox account is a big limiter here, too.
Both Google Drive and Dropbox integrate with a
variety of other often-used services, like Microsoft Office, Slack, Adobe
Creative Cloud, Zoom, et cetera. Dropbox even lets you sign in with a Google or
Apple account, if you like.
Usability
While Google is a clear winner on value, and
they’ve made it easy to access your files on multiple platforms, Dropbox still
has an edge on usability, in my opinion. Google Drive tends to treat its
storage as one big pool of data, and while it has support for the basic
directory system of folders most PC users are used to, the platform would
prefer you to use its built-in search tools.
Dropbox, on the other hand, assumes that you
generally know where you put your stuff, and makes it easy to navigate through
folders and sub-folders either on an app or in a desktop directory. It’s not effortlessly
intuitive, but it’s familiar to anyone who’s been using desktops and laptops
for most of their adult lives. It’s a PC-first approach, rather than the
(perhaps understandable) mobile-style interface of Drive.
Performance
While Google Drive is by no means slow, Dropbox
gets the edge in performance, too. When trying to upload massive amounts of
both large and small data, Dropbox gave me consistently faster upload speeds.
That’s a notable consideration if you plan on hitting your storage hard and
frequently.
Dropbox also has a feature that makes it faster to send files
around your local network: LAN sync. This tool allows files added
to your Dropbox account to start copying over local Ethernet or Wi-Fi connections
even before they’re fully uploaded to the cloud. In practical terms, this makes
a file added on your phone (say, a new photo you took of your pet) appear
almost instantaneously in the Dropbox folder on your Windows or MacOS computer,
so long as both devices are connected to the local network.
It’s a small but crucial advantage if what you’re really looking
for is a bucket of syncing storage that’s quick and easy to access.
Sharing storage and PC backup
As you might expect, Google comes out ahead in terms of sharing
storage between family members. While Google One plans can be shared with up to
five extra family members (for a total of six users) on the cheapest $2 a month
tier, Dropbox only unlocks this option once you start paying $20 a month for
2TB of storage.
Individual files can be shared easily on
both platforms, and there’s not much of a difference between Google Drive and
Dropbox if you’re sharing accounts. But unless you need a truly massive amount
of storage on Dropbox, Google Drive is better in terms of value if you want to
share that storage between two or more users.
Both systems offer tools to back up your
PC’s files to the cloud in a system-wide fashion… sort of. While it’s certainly
possible to treat Google Drive or Dropbox as a cloud backup system, these
platforms really aren’t designed for a regular emergency backup. Their slow
upload speed and cumbersome backup tools put them well behind dedicated
services like Carbonite or Backblaze. I wouldn’t give either one extra points of this
feature. (For more on this topic, see our roundup of the best cloud backup services.)
Extras
On top of the above tools, there are less tangible
advantages to both systems. Purchasing extra Google Drive storage via the
Google One system gets you:
·Shared space for Gmail
messages/attachments and Google Photos
How about Dropbox? Once again, Dropbox is more
stingy with its tools, unlocking some of its more premium options under more
expensive consumer or business accounts. Even the full text search, a fairly
basic tool that you can perform yourself on local files in just about any OS,
isn’t available at the free tier. Once again Dropbox’s more stingy nature is
hurting it in this comparison.
Google
Drive is the clear winner
While Dropbox has a superior interface and user
experience (at least for people who prefer conventional PC-style file systems),
and its performance and LAN sync tools can leave the competition in the dust,
Google is offering a better product and a better value on almost all other
points of comparison.
From the price of premium storage, to integration
with desktop and mobile operating systems, to less tangible bonuses as part of
the Google One system, Drive is a clear winner. That’s doubly true if you’re
looking to stick to free tools.
Which isn’t to say that Dropbox is necessarily a
bad choice. That extra performance and better interface might be worth it,
especially for users who don’t necessarily need the massive amount of storage
Google offers. Just be aware of the trade-off in value.